I'm impressed. (Score 1)

It's a case where the people who wrote the law had an intention: to make it illegal to sexually solicit a minor across the internet.

...seriously. The last guy I discussed lay legalisms with gave a "you can rape kids, as long as you're straight" defense into their statement. You avoided the obvious idiocy.

However, if you don't mind, I think I see one little flaw in your argumentation...

Along comes this case, about a guy who unquestionably solicited sex with a minor, but ooops, technicality, he can't be prosecuted because he didn't use "email".

See... ...he can't be prosecuted for using email because he didn't use email.

He can still be prosecuted for soliciting sex with a minor if he solicited sex with a minor. ...that's the key difference in the rule of law, here.

Now, Florida has a whacky definition of email which includes unseen contents in the packet header, among several other problems, which makes this a little bit more legal than it should be...

Were that not the case, however - I'd consider "he cannot be prosecuted for using email because he didn't use email" to be extremely vital to the legal system, myself. It's sort of like "menacing with a firearm without a firearm," or "murder without killing anybody," or the like. ...wouldn't want that...